Mukesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard Sri Anurag Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Shahi, the learned AGA, who has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case, and perused the record.

¶10

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Case Crime/FIR No.333 of 2025, under Sections 105 and 352 BNS, P.S.- Laherpur, District- Sitapur.

¶11

While pressing the application for bail, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

It is further stated that co-accused persons namely Kalindri @ Shailendri and Ram Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.10.2025 and 10.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9824 of 2025 and 10352 of 2025. The order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9824 of 2025 reads as under:-

¶13

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶14

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.333 of 2025, under Sections 105 and 352 BNS, P.S. Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR in question was lodged alleging that on 13.6.2025 the father of the informant aged about 75 years was beaten by all the accused including the applicant with lathi, danda which subsequently resulted in his death. The post mortem report indicates the presence of as many as 5 injuries including head injuries which is also the cause of death. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier FIR was lodged at the instance of the applicant against the opposite parties being FIR No. 332 of 2025. Apart from the said it is argued that there is no specific allegation against the applicant who is a lady of having caused the injury which caused the

¶16

BAIL No. 1193 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

death.

¶19

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶20

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant, a lady, who is in jail since 24.7.2025 having no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶21

6. Let the applicant Kalindri @ Shailendri be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶22

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶23

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶24

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

¶25

It is further stated that the applicant, having no criminal history, is in judicial custody since 07.01.2026. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. and also the learned counsel for the side opposite opposed the prayer for grant of bail but they could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also that similarly placed co-accused persons, named above, have already been released on bail by this Court as also chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶28

Let the applicant- Mukesh be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member/close relative of the accusedapplicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

BAIL No. 1193 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶36

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶37

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶38

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶39

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶40

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶41

Application is disposed of .

¶42

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶43

February 18, 2026

¶44

Arun/-

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Kant Srivastava vs Shri Haratheesh H.A. Posted as Addl. General Manager/ Unit Head Iti Ltd. Raibareli and Another

Shakir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Dist. Lko. and 8 Others

Jwala Prasad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Bal Krishna vs Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Engineer-in-Chief Development and Head of Deptt. Lko.

Rohit Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Suresh Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.